Society's Pliers
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Friday, April 19, 2013
Grabbing The Weed By The Root
Of course, perhaps this
defeat was merely heading off the inevitable at the pass; the Republican
controlled House had been noncommittal on even bringing the hypothetical measure
to the floor, let alone passing it. Yes,
it seems the agreed upon strategy of gun reform proponents in the wake of The
Worst Thing Imaginable, plus other recent mass shootings, of taking small
policy bites, focusing on common sense legislation that most people could agree
upon, has no direct path to the law books themselves. Various explanations abound, but primarily
the specter of Wayne LaPierre and the other members of the NRA leadership, and
their threat to launch an electoral jihad on any Republican legislators who
voted for the measure, are to blame.
At this juncture, many
people willing and eager to confront the national gun violence epidemic must be
left wondering what in the holy hell to do, and understandably so. After all, if these non-controversial reforms
that enjoyed broad public support couldn’t even clear the procedural filibuster
in the Senate, then there doesn’t seem to be much hope of achieving meaningful steps
towards reducing the carnage.
But there is a way; that
is to start talking about the 2nd Amendment itself.
If there is a more
misunderstood and misinterpreted piece of language in the United States Constitution,
good luck finding it. Here it is, quoted
directly:
“A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The part that often gets
ignored in most 2nd Amendment shorthand is the ‘well-regulated militia’
bit. However, this portion is key to
understanding the actual rights being granted.
Based on the actual text of the document, not its intent, but the words
themselves, the amendment actually says that the ‘Arms’ borne by the citizens
are for the purpose of the militia itself.
Even this is to quibble
semantically, and many gun-rights advocates will continue to argue that they,
and many other gun owners, make up a kind of ad hoc militia that will,
apparently, mobilize into action to stop the threat of supposed tyranny
whenever it should rear its monstrous head.
If they think so, sure.
But, I’ll let you in on a
little secret. The 2nd
Amendment is as meaningless in today’s modern society, and has been for some
time, as the 3rd Amendment, which reads:
“No Soldier shall, in time of
peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time
of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Both of these amendments, featured
prominently in the Bill of Rights, are products of the time in which they were
written. The drafters of the
Constitution, having just fought a war against the British, wrote the 3rd
Amendment in direct response to the previous English government quartering
troops in the homes of colonists. It was
a spiteful, reactionary rule that, realistically, was not going to be a problem
in the new nation. It remains in the
Bill of Rights, but it hasn’t been worth the ink it’s written with for over 200
years.
Just like the 3rd
Amendment, the 2nd is, on its face, a product of late 18th
Century society. Beyond the obvious food
gathering utility of owning a firearm in these early years of the Republic,
which has long since evaporated as the means of obtaining the next meal, the new
United States was a nation beset by dangers.
The Americans living at the dawn of this grand experiment in democracy
had serious concerns about attacks on their farms and homes by Native
Americans, contentious neighbors, and even wild animals. But that’s the 18th Century, when
using a musket to ward off wolves and settle disputes was an acceptable form of
conflict resolution. In the long march
of progress from 1789 to 2013, it’d be nice to think that we’ve moved beyond
sending bullets flying in the direction of people with whom we disagree, but that’s
probably not realistic.
Now, anyone who attempts
to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers of the country is invariably
projecting his/her own ideology onto the words of their texts. However, it is important to remember that this
document, the Constitution of the United States of America, was written by
men. Fallible, imperfect men, who were
capable of making mistakes. They’d
already made a big one: The Articles of Confederation. In all of the deification of the founders
(ironic, since many of them were Deists who believed in a hands-free creator
that did not meddle in the affairs of men), it’s easy to forget that the
Constitution, this document that certain elements herald as divinely inspired,
was Draft Two. They got it wrong once
before. It stands to reason that their
second go-round, while an enormous improvement, wasn’t exactly perfect.
While such a dialogue
about the merit of an entrenched part of the Bill of Rights will be met with
crowing and consternation, it is necessary if we, as a country, actually care
to address the violence that plagues us year after year. In a society that is changing so rapidly due
to technology, the environment, and the increased participation and
interconnectedness of the rest of the world, it would be foolish not to see
that most other developed countries do not have this problem. A strict Constitutionalist view is no longer
possible on these grounds, because that perspective ignores 200-plus years of
human progress.
Perhaps, in time, people
will remember that the 1st Amendment is the one that really matters,
because it allows us to argue that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism
that, for whatever reason, has hung on.
If gun reform advocates want to go after the big fish, then the
conversation about the validity of the amendment itself needs to begin.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Humanities: America’s Endangered Species
In the opening sequence of Act One of Spike Lee’s
four-part Hurricane Katrina documentary, When
the Levees Broke, a piece of footage collected during the storm shows a
road sign for New Orleans’ Humanity Street.
Included as a means of emphasizing the scale of the flooding, the waters
of the Gulf of Mexico reach nearly to the sign’s green marker, at once evoking
the breaking of the levees themselves and, because of the aptly named
thoroughfare, the dire circumstances of the stranded residents of the deluged
city.
This particularly striking image in a film full of them
might provide another useful meaning, albeit unintended by the filmmakers; the
humanities (by which I mean the liberal arts, like English, History, Sociology,
Art, etc.) themselves are nearly ready to drown. Conduct a survey of college freshmen (I dare someone),
asking them their intended majors, and inevitably, the answers will read:
Business, Business Administration, Marketing, Advertising, Business again,
Economics, Business a third time. The
folks looking to study the less quantifiable are fewer and farther between as
the marketplace, in its infinite wisdom, increasingly decides that it has no
use for Literary Modernism, or an understanding of the Progressive Era, or
(gasp!) Descartes, and equally little use for those people who spent time
thinking about any of that “Commy stuff.”
To be fair, post-college opportunities don’t look rosy
for graduates in any discipline, but certainly the students who majored in
those business-oriented areas listed above have a better chance than those of
us who spent our time trying to figure out what it all means instead of how
much it all adds up to. For example, this 2009 study by the American Labor
Department reported that “The majors with the worst placement records were area
studies (44.7 percent in degree-requiring jobs) and humanities (45.4 percent).”1
My sympathies go out to those poor bastards in area studies; there is some
small comfort in knowing that it could always be worse, I suppose.
This isn’t to say that young people shouldn’t major in
these subjects; it sure looks like the smart move in hindsight, anyway. Maybe they understand something about the new
world that us humanities rubes just don’t, and maybe they’re right to start
speaking the native language. Take a look around and try to understand just how
much time the citizens of the world spend negotiating the minefield established
by the ubiquity of business. It has become as commonplace and almost as
necessary as breathing. From the
advertisements playing on the radio in the car on the way to work, to the
Starbucks drive-thru halfway to the office, to the job itself, and everything
in between, business is Everywhere. And
that’s just before 9 AM. Business is the
way we move through life, like we are all tiny blood cells, just traveling the
veins of the body and hoping we are lucky enough not to get thrown overboard by
a massive rectal hemorrhage.
And because we’re so busy keeping the body alive, there’s
no time to remember that we’re alive, too.
So, if there’s no time to live, then there must be no point in studying
disciplines that can’t be deciphered by an adding machine, no matter how much
it costs. It must be a waste of time to
bother understanding humanity’s flaws through the shared experience of Macbeth
because humans are just productivity numbers, anyway. Let’s not distract ourselves by thinking
about historical parallels between the 1920s, which precipitated the Great
Depression, and the run-up to our own contemporary financial meltdown of 2008,
because we’re not going to change anything, anyhow. Leave off looking at the Mona Lisa, because
we’re never going to figure out if she’s smiling or not, nor what she’s smiling
about if she in fact is, and get back to work, anywho.
‘But this must be what the market wants,’ my friends and
I routinely say, in mock genuflection at America’s true sacred altar, no matter
how much lip service that God fella gets. If the market says that it doesn’t have a
place for people who know anything about Rousseau, then we must obey. Philosophy has to put up a sign that says,
‘Going out of Business.’ And herein lies
the ironic trap of the market philosophy that’s brought us to this unenviable
place; the concept of the market is amorphous enough that its proponents have
been able to insist that everything falls into it, and is therefore subject to
the same rules. So, in the great market
competition between money and life, money builds a big-box store in town, and
life becomes another empty storefront on a depressed, small town Main Street.
I should do my humanities brethren a solid and close with
an appropriately opaque literary metaphor (maybe it’ll be one of the last ever
written and they’ll print it on a commemorative plate and sell it on QVC). But so few people will understand or identify
with it that I won’t even bother. The
water seems to get higher all the time.
Source:
1http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/the-college-majors-that-do-best-in-the-job-market/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)